TRIPLE HELIX noms.pmd

P-031Context Factors Moderating the Impact of Incentives for University PatentingThomas Walter, RWTH Aachen University, GermanyEver since the advent of the “second academic revolution” (Etzkowitz et al., 2000; Etzkowitz, 2003), universities around theworld have strived to design incentive systems in support academic patenting activities. Advancement of economic developmentthrough rapid transfer of innovative laboratory science into commercially viable products and services has emerged as the „thirdmission“in addition to the two more conventional roles of research and teaching. Traditional universities are rapidly transformingthemselves into „Entrepreneurial Universities“ (Etzkowitz, 2000) and instruments for improving economically less dynamicregions (Degroof & Roberts, 2004). Federal budget constraints and public policy debates have further increased the pressurefrom governments to commercialize intellectual property generated by universities (O’Shea, 2008; Wright, 2004).Wilhelm et al. have shown in extensive case studies with scientists and university administrators in the US and Germany thatthe propensity of academic scientists to patent their research results can be influenced by a range of incentives and contextfactors. They have also conceptualized these incentives and context factors to take effect on both individual and institutionallevel. The incentives identified include financial gains, reputation increase, provisions pertaining to career advancement andtechnology transfer process improvements. However, the context factors identified by this study cover a much broader range ofaspects, i.e.:- on an institutional level:• the commercialization culture within the research unit,• the communication culture within research unit,• the general proximity of the research results to application,• the historical context of technology transfer culture and history,• the research university’s overall commitment to technology transfer (expressed in the mission statement, culture, history andset-up),• the structure of potential target markets and• the characteristics of commercialization partners.- on an individual level:• the age of the scientist,• the career phase of the scientist and• the amount of industry experience (outside the research university) of the scientist.(Wilhelm et al. 2009)A literature review suggests that are at least two more contextual factors which need to be incorporated into a comprehensivemodel of incentives for university patenting. Scholars have repeatedly pointed out gender inequalities in view of universitypatenting (Rosa and Dawson 2006, Whittington and Smith-Doerr 2005, Thursby and Thursby 2005). Furthermore, the role of thework contract structure (fixed term or open-ended) remains elusive. In some circumstances, fixed term contracts for academicshave been perceived as disadvantageous in the past (Bryson 2004). In this paper, we would like to focus on the complexinterplay of these context factors and advance a refined model based on classic organizational theory (Cyert and March, 1963;March et al., 1958; Simon, 1976), principal-agent theory (Eisenhardt, 1989; Jensen and Meckling, 1978) and descriptive decisiontheory (Elbanna, 2006) in preparation of a large scale empirical survey. The results are expected to help administrators andscientists to negotiate incentive systems for university patenting that are both effective and custom-tailored to the specificrequirements on site.References (selection)- Agrawal, A. and Henderson, R. (2002): Putting Patents in Context: Exploring Knowledge Transfer from MIT. ManagementScience 48, 44-60.- Baldini, N., Grimaldi, R. and Sobrero, M. (2007): To patent or not to patent? A survey of Italian inventors on motivations,incentives, and obstacles to university patenting. Scientometrics 70, 333-354.- Bryson, C. (2004): The Consequences for Women in the Academic Profession of the Widespread Use of Fixed TermContracts. Gender, Work and Organization 11(2), 187-206.- Cyert, R.M. and March, J.G. (1963): A Behavioral Theory of the Firm, Prentice Hall, Endlewood Cliffs, NJ.- Degroof, J.J. and Roberts, E. B. (2004): Overcoming Weak Entrepreneurial Infrastructures for Academic Spin-Off Ventures.Journal of Technology Transfer 29, 327-352.- Eisenhardt, K. M. (1989): Agency Theory: An Assessment and Review. Academy of Management Review 14(1), 57-74.- Elbanna, S. (2006): Strategic decision-making: Process perspectives. International Journal of Management Reviews 8(1), 1-20.- Etzkowitz, H. and Leydesdorff, L. (2000): The dynamics of innovation: from National Systems and `Mode 2' to a Triple Helixof university. Research Policy 29, 109-122.- Etzkowitz, H. (2003): Research groups as 'quasi-firms': the invention of the entrepreneurial university. Research Policy 32,Madrid, October 20, 21 & 22 - 2010363